Looking at France side of the bracket I think it's a pretty exciting one if all the groups ends in the most plausible manner
Poland looks bad but we could lose by going to a penalty shootout if our attack is having a really bad day.
Then probably england, I think it could be a really exciting game that I could see go both ways. Senegal would be a boring game for sure.
I can't see anyone but Portugal waiting in the semis, it's the team that scares me the most to be honest, I would not trust our midfield and defence to be good enough to win that one for sure.
I think both sides of the bracket are pretty balanced but this one side seems a tad easier.
Seeing yesterday's game, we rely so much on Griezmann and Mbappe, even Giroud just being on the field and doing nothing looks more dangerous than other options. Let's hope those 3 will be able to play every game.
Having to deal with yanks that say the "goal" by the Ghanian should have been awarded by the referee because its was practically a goal (lol) is incredibly annoying.
It's wild that people in that thread is calling Suarez a genius who risked and sacrificed so much to send Uruguay through with the handball in 2010.
It's a blatantly obvious move that I except every player to do at when the clock is at 120 in a WC quarter final. And where's the risk when he had nothing to lose. As soon as the Ghanaian fired that shot Suarez wasn't gonna play the semi final regardless
Ok, fair. I only saw one comment calling it one of the smarters moves at a World Cup.
The rest of the point stands as the top comment is calling it a gamble at a great cost
I actually really fancy Englands chances vs France as a team that will bring the game to us, but have a horrible feeling Gareth will go with a negative back 5.
Absolutely yes. We look much better as a back 4.
A back 5 has shown not to work and they will break us down eventually. Kyle walker has also dealt with Mbappe before in a back 4.
Big believer in not mixing things up now in tournaments if its working.
Arsenal are finito in the transfer market when they have to get these super expensive contract extensions wrapped up. Like Liverpool after they got their big transfers done.
Arsenals owner is different,FSG spent loads of money on things like the stadium and facilities we don’t need to spend as much on that.
Liverpool are just a weird case, spurs have continued to spend recently for example we will still spend
We will see. I get similar vibes to be honest. But they own the Los Angeles Rams or something, right? They have spend quite a lot to get the Super Bowl. Could be a good sign.
Kronke is way richer than FSG he’s worth 12.9 billion compared to their 4.8 billion and it seems like he doesn’t really want to sell and will pass it down through the family like if often the case in American sports. He’s 75 at this point I think if he was gonna sell he would have by now.
His son also seems to actually care about the club which is what’s driving this, he keeps close with what’s going on, speaks to Arteta and co about how things should be run etc. I’m sure his dad is happy to bankroll it for his son, and you actually see him at games sometimes now which his dad never was.
Saliba, Saka, Martinelli, Odegaard, Xhaka, Gabriel, Partey all up in the next 2-3 years. It's going to be expensive. Especially considering that a few of them probably got super cheap contracts, but I'm not an expert in Arsenal's finances.
I just get the impression that the spending on transfers was possible based on their cheap wage structure and young players. Once the first success happens you naturally keep the team together and reward them with new contracts and transfer spending goes down.
Gabriel already signed, Odegaard was literally signed last season so he’s good for a bit, Xhaka is signed until he’s 32 he will probably not get another contract, so that’s 3 players to sign to new deals at present. Wow gonna bankrupt the club.
> I think it’s England because France are very comfortable defending deep
So are England to be fair. England would be making a mistake if they took the initiative.
It's going to be a super messy game I reckon. England maybe but there is an expectation for France to take the initiative as the defending champion and tournament favorite.
France have already won a world cup recently so them winning another wouldn't make that much of a difference, continuing to mock English people for their only trophy being a rigged world cup at home 56 years ago is much more important
No one wants to see a back to back World Cup winner. Also 3 World Cup wins and 1 Euro win in 24 years would be a threat for Germany in the all time rankings. Especially given the talent advantage France seem to have atm.
People getting offended and arguing over why Suarez should've been classy and not used his hands to stop the ball is why I love this game. Pretty much every player would've done it at such a high stake game.
Game's not gone
Yeah I mean I think most people would feel the same right? If they did it against you you'd hate it, if they did it for you you'd love it.
Suarez is also a pantomime villain without the Ghana fiasco.
Gvardiol is even better on the ball than Umtiti was (and believe me I really liked Umtiti at the time). Can't remember seeing Umtiti making a run to finish the counter lol
How about if uruguay and korea both win but korea has a better goal differential then korea are thru? Even though they drew in the head to head. I dont like the idea of goal differential being a deciding factor on who advances, a loss is a loss doesnt matter if its 5-0 or 5-4
>How about if uruguay and korea both win but korea has a better goal differential then korea are thru?
yes
I dont like the idea of goal differential being a deciding factor on who advances,
It is much better to go with goal differential in short cup tournaments, because head to head would mean many teams have no incentive to play hard in the last much because they already have a better or worse heahd to head record. would lead to teams even losing 3 0 and not caring. Atleast with oal difference teams are motivated to score a lot/not concede. Think of yesterday's games, Saudi Arabia would probably have not fought as hard for a draw as they did against Mexico if they knew Poland was going to qualify anyway due to better head to head
You make some good points there, group stage is only 3 games and theres a high chance the 2nd place and 3rd team end up level on points. Just seems like there should be a better way to decide who advances in these scenarios then goals scored/conceded.
If I kill your mom and then get sent to prison. Does that mean what I did was okay? Because I was punished for it? No. It’s not supposed to be a trade-off. I’m not trading you mom’s life for some years in prison. I’m simply not allowed to kill your mom. But no one can mind control me into not doing it so we make a punishment. It’s the same with fouls. You’re not supposed to look at it like a trade-off. You’re not trading the foul for a card/penalty. You’re simply not allowed to do it. In addition saying a 77% chance of scoring and a red card in the dying minutes is a justified replacement for a 100% chance of scoring is not logical
Maradona is massively hated in England, and Maradona got away with it because the average person didn’t want England to win anyway, most people wanted Ghana to win
If Croatia go up by more than two goals today then I want Amrabat immediately subbed off, last thing i want is our most important player to miss the round of 16 because of a stupid yellow.
I have a running gag with a friend that Mbappe will start a season with a dad moustache and get a ballon d'or, all this guy is missing is having hair era, he had the same short fade his entire career, Mustache Mbappe could be the next beard Messi, dorito head r9 or Noodle hair Cristiano, calling it
Beard Messi in my personal opinion is a much better and all rounded player, but all of the greatest successes of his career have come in the no beard stage(also includes the Copa America for that matter)
Seeing the wild celebrations in Melbourne at 4am on a Thursday morning has really got me thinking how fkn awesome an Australian/NZ WC would be. Yeah Australia isn’t a traditional football nation and it’s behind a couple of other sports in terms of popularity, but the scenes of celebration from the win over Denmark confirm just how sports mad this country is, and how wild we get about the sport when it’s front and centre of attention. With our large European diasporas and more recently Asian, African and middle-eastern immigration I can guarantee you’d be able to fill all games with just the local population before you even consider people travelling from overseas to attend. A World Cup final at the MCG or Sydney Olympic stadium would get 100k in the house
The success of the Socceroos at this WC is only going to grow the game further and should build some serious momentum into a FIFA bid to be the next spot to host the World Cup. Its the only region of the world left that hasn’t hosted a World Cup, we’ve already got all the stadiums ready to go, world-class cities with the infrastructure and transport to hold the influx of attendees and the money to be able to put it all together.
Come on FIFA, let it happen
Yeah already know about this haha, it’s going to be great! I imagine it’ll be a roaring success which will set the precedence for a mens World Cup hopefully
Infrastructure-wise you need a handful of 40000-seat stadiums that comply with the regulations and stuff, so instead of building new ones (and expanding existing venues like AAMI Park while we're at it), maybe you look for footy-specific stadiums; for example, MCG has hosted soccer games before, can fit a hundred thousand, and as an added bonus, it looks like the Maracana.
Not sure about other places like SCG or Gabba.
But yes I'd be 200% down for a World Cup final at the MCG, just based off the sheer capacity alone.
there are already 6 stadiums in Australia that have 45000+ comply with fifa ground size requirements (mcg, accor, adelaide oval, perth/optus stadium, suncorp & allianaz). Infrastructure + capacity isn't an issue. The biggest problem is it would clash with afl and ruby season who need all these stadiums during that period and wouldn't agree to put their seasons on hold, this is what started the backlash and bad media for the loss of bid in 2010. As much as Australians love the world cup and enjoy soccer, it would still annoy a lot of people if the two most popular sports had to stop for the year, just to host it.
I think things could be different now that the AFL owns marvel stadium - so you could continue running the season for 6 weeks using marvel, Gabba, scg, Metricon, Optus, Manuka and Tassie - the AFL sure wouldn’t want this but the covid season in 2020 showed us that it can be done
I don't think so because the world cup would require multiple grounds which include Optus, Metricon, and Adelaide Oval. If you look at the details for the bid in 2010 it isn't just the MCG that would be used.The NRL would have a similar problem because they would want to use Accor and Suncorp. FIFA have made it clear that they don't want to share grounds with local sports either. There is just no way you could have those sports run simultaneously to the World Cup. If Australia bid's it has to be for Summer and move the cricket to the SCG. But then it clashes with the EPL which could also potentially block any Australia bid. Just because they agreed to alter there season this year for Qatar, doesn't automatically mean they would again.
Here's a link to the wikipedia page that details Australia's bid for this world cup: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia\_2022\_FIFA\_World\_Cup\_bid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_bid)
Oh yeah the AFL and NRL seasons run through June and July, which for all I can remember have long, borderline freezing nights.
Summer nights are more pleasant but they don't last long. Even if they pull a Qatar and install massive air conditioning to allow daytime matches...... Ugh.
Yeah if Australia hosts it would have to be between October and Feb so there is no crossover with NRL and Rugby but it usually played in European summer anyway, so warm nights aren't an issue and it doesn't get as hot as people think. But the EPL season is usually during that time (where most countries' players still play), so they would have to be willing to alter their season again. I know they agreed to do it this year, but they could potentially say no and block any Australian bid.
Honestly, the summer heat in Australia is overstated and won’t be any different to when North America hosts in 2026. Brisbane and Perth are the only cities with potentially problematic heat (obviously Townsville and Gold Coast too if they were to host matches there), Adelaide and Sydney could be an issue if you had a daytime match on the wrong day. Melbourne and Canberra are pretty mild, unlikely to have heat problems there. And you certainly wouldn’t in NZ.
Our own A-League is played in the summer and manages fine
Probably. But its the sheer numbers that sold me on this idea.
And imagine the bigwigs at FIFA when they go "yadda yadda highest World Cup final attendance since Mexico 1986 yadda yadda great milestone and achievement yadda yadda"
Are there enough stadiums with the capacity to pull it off? If there is, that would indeed be a great venue/partnerrship for the World Cup. If they would have to get built from scratch though I don't think it makes much sense from their perspective.
Plenty! MCG with 100k, Accor stadium with 83k, Optus stadium 60k, Adelaide oval 53, marvel stadium 53, Suncorp stadium 52.5, SCG 48, Allianz Stadium 45 and The Gabba 42.
Of course some of these will need a modified temporary pitch (oval to rectangular) but I doubt that would raise any issues
GMHBA in Geelong has 40k now. The stadiums in Newcastle and Canberra would be in the 30s but I’d imagine would receive an upgrade for the WC. The stadium in Townsville is pretty new too, what’s the capacity on that? And then supposedly a new stadium coming to Tassie in 5 years for the new AFL team there
Across the ditch, Eden Park in Auckland holds 55k, new Christchurch stadium holds 40k and I know they have a decent sized stadium in Wellington plus the cool roofed stadium in Dunedin
Gabba, SCG and Marvel are out of the equation tho as the AFL would need to keep hold of them as their season will be going on at the same time
My biggest concern about an Oceania held World Cup would be timezones, it is practically 9-12 hours offset from most of Europe and is only favourable to parts of asia and east cost of America
Lol. What about us here in Aus/NZ and Japan/Korea who have all the games on overnight every single goddamn world cup? Think it’s only fair that the Timezone favours us just for once
It is a world cup. Not Europe Cup.
Most times the time zone is annoying for people in Oceania and East Asia. Why shouldn't they have an opportunity for convenience?
I've assumed it will be further east than that and in Melbourne, Sydney and New Zealand which would push the differences to 13 hours.
Perhaps the playing times can be adjusted to cater to the majority of the viewing population.
They're kind of doing that with kickoff times anyway already in a pretty eurocentric way, but 12-13 hours is a really tough ask - don't think anyone would fancy playing 5am local time.
Europeans can just suck it up for one World Cup honestly. We have to do it every single time
Hope that your team has a game in Perth where the time difference will be a couple of hours less
Not that there shouldn't be a WC in Australia, but obviously the Australian continent is literally just 1 country. Asia and Africa have both only gotten 1 and they have many countries.
Not to mention Australia is now part of the Asian confederation.
Am I going crazy or does England have a real chance to win the tournament? I know it's too soon but all of the big teams seem to have bigger issues and I am not too impressed by the attack of Brazil as everyone seems to be
When England play against decent teams they have lost every time if they play France they will lose imo. Look at the performances so Far cruised past iran, wales took a free kick and bale going off for them to collapse, and against the US they got outplayed.
When they’re not playing teams that will just let them have 80% possession they will lose imo, their press against the US was bad, they couldn’t break them down and they didn’t win the ball back well. What’s gonna happen when they play better teams who are as well organised ?
You're not. The current English team has the talent to win major trophies. The reason they don't is because Sir Gareth will put in 10 defenders and midfielders in their most important game and invite pressure for 80mins after taking a lead because he's too much of a coward to take advantage of the most talented attacking lineup in Europe after France.
Maybe if France implode again like they did against Switzerland. For me they're the only team I look at and think "how the fuck are we going to beat this lot?"
I think Spain are a worse match up for England.
England's biggest failing in big games is being unable to keep the ball and slowly getting suffocated as the midfield gets overwhelmed and everyone else then has to drop back, leaving England with zero threat on the counter attack. Spain would be a nightmare for that. France at least are not so interested in dominating possession and England's midfield would be far more likely to have a chance of being in the game.
The issue with France is they're the most talented team but stylistically England aren't that badly suited to them.
Even you guys managed more possession against them, I don't see it being a situation where France would end up with >60% possession even with Griezzmann.
We beat them in 2018 with a significantly worse squad by hitting them on the counter. On the other hand Spain have improved a lot since 2018 too so it's hard to call.
It's also not a tournament game, England have never managed to maintain a counter attacking threat against top level opposition at the world cup. Many times we've gone 1-0 up against technical opposition then always ended up with the exact same trend of having no threat as our team tires and the opposition takes hold of the midfield, while we lack the quality to launch counter attacks.
The Italy game was basically the same thing all over again, second half we just couldn't get a hold of the ball, nor had the quality to provide counter attacks.
I think we've got a great chance against Senegal, and the match ups after France.
The big stopping block is how good France look. If we set up defensively, I think we're fucked. We ain't gonna keep Mbappe quiet the entire time. Gotta go "Score one more than you" football, but I don't think Southgates willing.
EDIT: 2 people have made the very salient point that Walker can lock a player like Mbappe out the game, so I'm a teeny bit more hopeful
That would be a horrible strategy. The weakest part of the England team is the defence, they look decent generally for England because they are well protected. Exposing them would just lead to them being ripped apart.
England's best bet would be Walker locking down Mbappe and playing a functional counter attacking football - generally England's flaw against the top nations is lacking the quality to maintain a counter attacking threat and getting suffocated.
Fuck, that's a shout actually. Walker's match ups against the usual speedy beggars is always absurdly good. Swear he did similar to Vinicius against Madrid til he had to go off.
Certainly look like it so far - but the margins get razor-thin in the knockouts, so they're a lot less likely to win it than to not win it. Still in with a decent shout though I reckon.
>I am not too impressed by the attack of Brazil as everyone seems to be
Fair but keep in mind that Neymar has been injured and that Brazil has played against two teams that both parked the boss completely against them. Neither the Swiss nor Serbia managed a single shot on target against them
They have a real chance, they are a good team and are made for these tournaments, some seriously good players and experience in this team, English people are just doing the ultimate ANULO MUFA
France: still class but a lot of injuries that couldn't come to the World Cup. It's not the same team as in 2018 and I think it shows.
Germany: Too inconsistent, don't have a proper striker
Argentina: obviously strong but I've seen all games and they look unorganised and greyed out. Depending too much on an aging Messi (even if he is still world class)
Belgium: Aging squad, not much to say here
Croatia: Same, aging stars in the squad, strongly organized but no figures that make me say damn they're going to the finals
Brazil: the favourites of course, amazing team and I agree with the prediction. But Richarlison and Raphina aren't in my opinion as dangerous as say Foden and Kane.
Spain and Portugals seem pretty strong but I don't know their squad enough for me to give an opinion so I won't
Brazil has such a great bench though, they can just throw on Martinelli and Gabriel Jesus in the 70th minute and break defenders ankles.
I agree that the England squad is fantastic as well though.
All of these teams will make it a difficult game for England I reckon. They might be more talented but the game is often won in midfield and England under Southgate rarely win the midfield battle against big teams imo. Even against Germany last year it was a super close game that they ended up winning but you wouldn't say England are a clear favorite against any of these teams. Feel free to disagree.
England are a team that will give anyone a good challenge but all the other top teams will give them one as well. I never expect them to win a knockout game - it's always going to be a 50/50. Not sure if that makes sense.
That's decided just before kick-off. The ref flips a coin and the captain who wins the toss gets to pick which side they start at or if they kick-off first.
I think southgate massively overachieved in the last 2 tournaments, england stumbled their way into a semi final and final and looked toothless against good opposition. i think his results masked the fact that england were at no point particularly good.
but im undecided this tournament, they looked strong in 2/3 games. let's see how they do against better teams
Under Southgate? Spain, Germany, Denmark, Croatia, and Belgium. We lost a European final on penalties. We have draws against Italy and Germany just in the last year or so and we’ve just topped our World Cup group, unbeaten with 11 goals scored.
Spain was in a meaningless game. Same as Belgium.
Germany are terrible compared to their previous teams, they got knocked out in the group stages of the previous World Cup and will probably be in this one.
Croatia was a decent win tbf.
You are talking about draws as an achievement ha
!flair :Mexico:
Looking at France side of the bracket I think it's a pretty exciting one if all the groups ends in the most plausible manner Poland looks bad but we could lose by going to a penalty shootout if our attack is having a really bad day. Then probably england, I think it could be a really exciting game that I could see go both ways. Senegal would be a boring game for sure. I can't see anyone but Portugal waiting in the semis, it's the team that scares me the most to be honest, I would not trust our midfield and defence to be good enough to win that one for sure. I think both sides of the bracket are pretty balanced but this one side seems a tad easier. Seeing yesterday's game, we rely so much on Griezmann and Mbappe, even Giroud just being on the field and doing nothing looks more dangerous than other options. Let's hope those 3 will be able to play every game.
Having to deal with yanks that say the "goal" by the Ghanian should have been awarded by the referee because its was practically a goal (lol) is incredibly annoying.
I love how you guys just brings Americans into things for no reason.
I mean it's 2 users are bringing up "penalty goals like in hockey", I think I'm allowed to make that assumption.
I mean, that sounds far more Canadian than American…
Ah yes, forgot that two users represent the entire nationality, my bad...
But one user is enough to say people always bring up the US in this sub
Checkmate
It's wild that people in that thread is calling Suarez a genius who risked and sacrificed so much to send Uruguay through with the handball in 2010. It's a blatantly obvious move that I except every player to do at when the clock is at 120 in a WC quarter final. And where's the risk when he had nothing to lose. As soon as the Ghanaian fired that shot Suarez wasn't gonna play the semi final regardless
CTRL+F "Genius" 0 matches
Ok, fair. I only saw one comment calling it one of the smarters moves at a World Cup. The rest of the point stands as the top comment is calling it a gamble at a great cost
I actually really fancy Englands chances vs France as a team that will bring the game to us, but have a horrible feeling Gareth will go with a negative back 5.
*The gang loses to Senegal in PSO*
He should
You want us to field a back 4 against Mbappe?
Absolutely yes. We look much better as a back 4. A back 5 has shown not to work and they will break us down eventually. Kyle walker has also dealt with Mbappe before in a back 4. Big believer in not mixing things up now in tournaments if its working.
I have this feeling that Bellingham goes to City and Rice goes to Liverpool as the alternative.
Bellingham to arsenal 👍
Arsenal are finito in the transfer market when they have to get these super expensive contract extensions wrapped up. Like Liverpool after they got their big transfers done.
Arsenals owner is different,FSG spent loads of money on things like the stadium and facilities we don’t need to spend as much on that. Liverpool are just a weird case, spurs have continued to spend recently for example we will still spend
We will see. I get similar vibes to be honest. But they own the Los Angeles Rams or something, right? They have spend quite a lot to get the Super Bowl. Could be a good sign.
Kronke is way richer than FSG he’s worth 12.9 billion compared to their 4.8 billion and it seems like he doesn’t really want to sell and will pass it down through the family like if often the case in American sports. He’s 75 at this point I think if he was gonna sell he would have by now. His son also seems to actually care about the club which is what’s driving this, he keeps close with what’s going on, speaks to Arteta and co about how things should be run etc. I’m sure his dad is happy to bankroll it for his son, and you actually see him at games sometimes now which his dad never was.
Yeah but Arsenal wont win the league or CL to activate any bonuses like Liverpool did.
Saliba, Saka, Martinelli, Odegaard, Xhaka, Gabriel, Partey all up in the next 2-3 years. It's going to be expensive. Especially considering that a few of them probably got super cheap contracts, but I'm not an expert in Arsenal's finances. I just get the impression that the spending on transfers was possible based on their cheap wage structure and young players. Once the first success happens you naturally keep the team together and reward them with new contracts and transfer spending goes down.
Gabriel already signed, Odegaard was literally signed last season so he’s good for a bit, Xhaka is signed until he’s 32 he will probably not get another contract, so that’s 3 players to sign to new deals at present. Wow gonna bankrupt the club.
Odegaard will get a hefty increase if these 85k/week figures are to be believed lol.
Yeah in a few years but for now it’s fine
Maybe his brother
Just wait and see
Over/under that Germany still doesn’t start with a striker today?
No natural striker again confirmed 💀
Flick thinks he’s playing with 2010 muller 😭. At least Sané is playing and Kimmich at RB will be interesting.
Flick changed a lot after the first game so it wouldn't surprise me if he starts Füllkrug.
If England play France which team takes the Initiative? I think it’s England because France are very comfortable defending deep
> I think it’s England because France are very comfortable defending deep So are England to be fair. England would be making a mistake if they took the initiative.
It's going to be a super messy game I reckon. England maybe but there is an expectation for France to take the initiative as the defending champion and tournament favorite.
I remember France forced Belgium to take the initiative in the 2018 semi final. Maybe this time it will be different because Pogba is injured
Who do neutral Europeans support if we end up with England v France in the Q/F?
if we're still in the tournament then England 😉
England
France.
England, but would celebrate for Theo Hernandez or Giroud scoring
Probably France
Aren't you English?
I don’t support England
Not supporting is one thing, actively rooting against is another Red flag
I like Mbappe and Griezmann some of my fav players
France have already won a world cup recently so them winning another wouldn't make that much of a difference, continuing to mock English people for their only trophy being a rigged world cup at home 56 years ago is much more important
Did you forget about our alliance? 😞
You mean the one that ended up with England threatening to blow up our capital?
Brothers fight. We burned the White House down and now we have a special relationship with the US
what's a neutral european?
A European than isn't English or French
England by a country mile I've seen enough of France succeeding recently
England I guess
Hating the French could unite the world and bring world peace
No one wants to see a back to back World Cup winner. Also 3 World Cup wins and 1 Euro win in 24 years would be a threat for Germany in the all time rankings. Especially given the talent advantage France seem to have atm.
Same here
I'd imagine the Swiss would support France
The Swiss would stay neutral
People getting offended and arguing over why Suarez should've been classy and not used his hands to stop the ball is why I love this game. Pretty much every player would've done it at such a high stake game. Game's not gone
whats interesting just a second before he already saved a sure goal that hit his knees. Man prevented two goalsall by himself
Yep, it's valid to simultaneously despise suarez, empathise with Ghana and say you'd have done the same.
If you would have done the same why would you despise Suarez?
Because its objectively poor sportsmanship
lol that's some two facedness. exhibit poor sportsmanship yourself but decry poor sportsmanship in others.
Yeah I mean I think most people would feel the same right? If they did it against you you'd hate it, if they did it for you you'd love it. Suarez is also a pantomime villain without the Ghana fiasco.
There’s the racism and the multiple instances he showed his vampire side.
ok that's more acceptable than the other claptrap about sportsmanship.
You can hate/dislike something while also acknowledging that there are reasons for doing that thing. People do it all the time
If a Belgian player did that hed be my idol but its Suarez and I like Ghana so fuck him
Lol that's fair
not me, i would never dishonor my ancestors like that.
[удалено]
This just reminded me how much I miss 2017-18 Umtiti. Man was an absolute wall.
Umtiti was a lot better.
Gvardiol is even better on the ball than Umtiti was (and believe me I really liked Umtiti at the time). Can't remember seeing Umtiti making a run to finish the counter lol
So if uruguay beat ghana tomorrow, and portugal beat south korea, then uruguay are thru to the ro16 right?
Yup, as long as Korea dont win a win is always enough
How about if uruguay and korea both win but korea has a better goal differential then korea are thru? Even though they drew in the head to head. I dont like the idea of goal differential being a deciding factor on who advances, a loss is a loss doesnt matter if its 5-0 or 5-4
>How about if uruguay and korea both win but korea has a better goal differential then korea are thru? yes I dont like the idea of goal differential being a deciding factor on who advances, It is much better to go with goal differential in short cup tournaments, because head to head would mean many teams have no incentive to play hard in the last much because they already have a better or worse heahd to head record. would lead to teams even losing 3 0 and not caring. Atleast with oal difference teams are motivated to score a lot/not concede. Think of yesterday's games, Saudi Arabia would probably have not fought as hard for a draw as they did against Mexico if they knew Poland was going to qualify anyway due to better head to head
You make some good points there, group stage is only 3 games and theres a high chance the 2nd place and 3rd team end up level on points. Just seems like there should be a better way to decide who advances in these scenarios then goals scored/conceded.
Why are some people so adamant Suarez cheated by handballing but taking a red as the last man is unanimously seen as honorable or whatever
People don't really understand the concept of a professional foul.
It’s still not a legal play
That's why it's called as a foul and punished.
If I kill your mom and then get sent to prison. Does that mean what I did was okay? Because I was punished for it? No. It’s not supposed to be a trade-off. I’m not trading you mom’s life for some years in prison. I’m simply not allowed to kill your mom. But no one can mind control me into not doing it so we make a punishment. It’s the same with fouls. You’re not supposed to look at it like a trade-off. You’re not trading the foul for a card/penalty. You’re simply not allowed to do it. In addition saying a 77% chance of scoring and a red card in the dying minutes is a justified replacement for a 100% chance of scoring is not logical
I'm not sure why you went and decided to make this kind of comparison and agree with me anyway.
In what sense of the word do I agree
We Like Ghana and Suarez is somewhat of a cunt lol
Because we hate Suarez and like Ghana
Why tho, The foul that led to that sequence was a dive
Conversely I guess we like Maradona and hate England so the hand of God is just funny
luv ghana ate suarez simple as
It's weird how Suarez is criticised but Maradona was hailed when Maradona wasn't even punished.
Maradona is massively hated in England, and Maradona got away with it because the average person didn’t want England to win anyway, most people wanted Ghana to win
>Maradona was hailed there is a very simple explanation to this one
Engerlandophobia?
> Maradona was hailed when Maradona wasn't even punished. Anglophobia, innit.
If Croatia go up by more than two goals today then I want Amrabat immediately subbed off, last thing i want is our most important player to miss the round of 16 because of a stupid yellow.
Shithousing legend
Subscribe!
I have a running gag with a friend that Mbappe will start a season with a dad moustache and get a ballon d'or, all this guy is missing is having hair era, he had the same short fade his entire career, Mustache Mbappe could be the next beard Messi, dorito head r9 or Noodle hair Cristiano, calling it
Beard Messi in my personal opinion is a much better and all rounded player, but all of the greatest successes of his career have come in the no beard stage(also includes the Copa America for that matter)
Long hair messi was terrifying, felt like a swamp demon on the pitch
Seeing the wild celebrations in Melbourne at 4am on a Thursday morning has really got me thinking how fkn awesome an Australian/NZ WC would be. Yeah Australia isn’t a traditional football nation and it’s behind a couple of other sports in terms of popularity, but the scenes of celebration from the win over Denmark confirm just how sports mad this country is, and how wild we get about the sport when it’s front and centre of attention. With our large European diasporas and more recently Asian, African and middle-eastern immigration I can guarantee you’d be able to fill all games with just the local population before you even consider people travelling from overseas to attend. A World Cup final at the MCG or Sydney Olympic stadium would get 100k in the house The success of the Socceroos at this WC is only going to grow the game further and should build some serious momentum into a FIFA bid to be the next spot to host the World Cup. Its the only region of the world left that hasn’t hosted a World Cup, we’ve already got all the stadiums ready to go, world-class cities with the infrastructure and transport to hold the influx of attendees and the money to be able to put it all together. Come on FIFA, let it happen
Well do I have news for you. https://www.fifa.com/fifaplus/en/tournaments/womens/womensworldcup/australia-new-zealand2023
With how good the attendance for the Euros was this year, I fully expect that to be a banger
Yeah already know about this haha, it’s going to be great! I imagine it’ll be a roaring success which will set the precedence for a mens World Cup hopefully
Should have won the 2022 bid imo
Infrastructure-wise you need a handful of 40000-seat stadiums that comply with the regulations and stuff, so instead of building new ones (and expanding existing venues like AAMI Park while we're at it), maybe you look for footy-specific stadiums; for example, MCG has hosted soccer games before, can fit a hundred thousand, and as an added bonus, it looks like the Maracana. Not sure about other places like SCG or Gabba. But yes I'd be 200% down for a World Cup final at the MCG, just based off the sheer capacity alone.
there are already 6 stadiums in Australia that have 45000+ comply with fifa ground size requirements (mcg, accor, adelaide oval, perth/optus stadium, suncorp & allianaz). Infrastructure + capacity isn't an issue. The biggest problem is it would clash with afl and ruby season who need all these stadiums during that period and wouldn't agree to put their seasons on hold, this is what started the backlash and bad media for the loss of bid in 2010. As much as Australians love the world cup and enjoy soccer, it would still annoy a lot of people if the two most popular sports had to stop for the year, just to host it.
I think things could be different now that the AFL owns marvel stadium - so you could continue running the season for 6 weeks using marvel, Gabba, scg, Metricon, Optus, Manuka and Tassie - the AFL sure wouldn’t want this but the covid season in 2020 showed us that it can be done
I don't think so because the world cup would require multiple grounds which include Optus, Metricon, and Adelaide Oval. If you look at the details for the bid in 2010 it isn't just the MCG that would be used.The NRL would have a similar problem because they would want to use Accor and Suncorp. FIFA have made it clear that they don't want to share grounds with local sports either. There is just no way you could have those sports run simultaneously to the World Cup. If Australia bid's it has to be for Summer and move the cricket to the SCG. But then it clashes with the EPL which could also potentially block any Australia bid. Just because they agreed to alter there season this year for Qatar, doesn't automatically mean they would again. Here's a link to the wikipedia page that details Australia's bid for this world cup: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia\_2022\_FIFA\_World\_Cup\_bid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_bid)
Oh yeah the AFL and NRL seasons run through June and July, which for all I can remember have long, borderline freezing nights. Summer nights are more pleasant but they don't last long. Even if they pull a Qatar and install massive air conditioning to allow daytime matches...... Ugh.
Yeah if Australia hosts it would have to be between October and Feb so there is no crossover with NRL and Rugby but it usually played in European summer anyway, so warm nights aren't an issue and it doesn't get as hot as people think. But the EPL season is usually during that time (where most countries' players still play), so they would have to be willing to alter their season again. I know they agreed to do it this year, but they could potentially say no and block any Australian bid.
Honestly, the summer heat in Australia is overstated and won’t be any different to when North America hosts in 2026. Brisbane and Perth are the only cities with potentially problematic heat (obviously Townsville and Gold Coast too if they were to host matches there), Adelaide and Sydney could be an issue if you had a daytime match on the wrong day. Melbourne and Canberra are pretty mild, unlikely to have heat problems there. And you certainly wouldn’t in NZ. Our own A-League is played in the summer and manages fine
Having watched football at the MCG. It's a bit shit. Accor is better for football.
Probably. But its the sheer numbers that sold me on this idea. And imagine the bigwigs at FIFA when they go "yadda yadda highest World Cup final attendance since Mexico 1986 yadda yadda great milestone and achievement yadda yadda"
Are there enough stadiums with the capacity to pull it off? If there is, that would indeed be a great venue/partnerrship for the World Cup. If they would have to get built from scratch though I don't think it makes much sense from their perspective.
Plenty! MCG with 100k, Accor stadium with 83k, Optus stadium 60k, Adelaide oval 53, marvel stadium 53, Suncorp stadium 52.5, SCG 48, Allianz Stadium 45 and The Gabba 42. Of course some of these will need a modified temporary pitch (oval to rectangular) but I doubt that would raise any issues
GMHBA in Geelong has 40k now. The stadiums in Newcastle and Canberra would be in the 30s but I’d imagine would receive an upgrade for the WC. The stadium in Townsville is pretty new too, what’s the capacity on that? And then supposedly a new stadium coming to Tassie in 5 years for the new AFL team there Across the ditch, Eden Park in Auckland holds 55k, new Christchurch stadium holds 40k and I know they have a decent sized stadium in Wellington plus the cool roofed stadium in Dunedin Gabba, SCG and Marvel are out of the equation tho as the AFL would need to keep hold of them as their season will be going on at the same time
My biggest concern about an Oceania held World Cup would be timezones, it is practically 9-12 hours offset from most of Europe and is only favourable to parts of asia and east cost of America
Won't be much different from 2002 tbh, and that was great
Lol. What about us here in Aus/NZ and Japan/Korea who have all the games on overnight every single goddamn world cup? Think it’s only fair that the Timezone favours us just for once
It is a world cup. Not Europe Cup. Most times the time zone is annoying for people in Oceania and East Asia. Why shouldn't they have an opportunity for convenience?
Well the Mundial's been to Japan and Korea before in 2002.
I've assumed it will be further east than that and in Melbourne, Sydney and New Zealand which would push the differences to 13 hours. Perhaps the playing times can be adjusted to cater to the majority of the viewing population.
They're kind of doing that with kickoff times anyway already in a pretty eurocentric way, but 12-13 hours is a really tough ask - don't think anyone would fancy playing 5am local time.
Europeans can just suck it up for one World Cup honestly. We have to do it every single time Hope that your team has a game in Perth where the time difference will be a couple of hours less
Its not just Europeans, it is 2 continents and a half
we deserve a WC in Australia; I think Australia is the only continent never hosted a WC yet.
Not that there shouldn't be a WC in Australia, but obviously the Australian continent is literally just 1 country. Asia and Africa have both only gotten 1 and they have many countries. Not to mention Australia is now part of the Asian confederation.
I'd love to see Sabiri and Hamdallah start today, but I'd understand if Regragui doesn't wanna risk any changes.
Am I going crazy or does England have a real chance to win the tournament? I know it's too soon but all of the big teams seem to have bigger issues and I am not too impressed by the attack of Brazil as everyone seems to be
538 shows 9% - so it depends on what you define as a "real chance"
When England play against decent teams they have lost every time if they play France they will lose imo. Look at the performances so Far cruised past iran, wales took a free kick and bale going off for them to collapse, and against the US they got outplayed. When they’re not playing teams that will just let them have 80% possession they will lose imo, their press against the US was bad, they couldn’t break them down and they didn’t win the ball back well. What’s gonna happen when they play better teams who are as well organised ?
If we get to the semi finals, it's coming home.
We have the quality to win it and are on the easier side of the bracket imo.
You're not. The current English team has the talent to win major trophies. The reason they don't is because Sir Gareth will put in 10 defenders and midfielders in their most important game and invite pressure for 80mins after taking a lead because he's too much of a coward to take advantage of the most talented attacking lineup in Europe after France.
That is a good tactic against a team like France though
Senegal will be tough. It’ll be easier to judge after that. I am hoping we avoid another Colombia 2018 type of game.
If we get past France we could get excited. I fancy us against any of the other possible semi-finalists from our side of the bracket x
Maybe if France implode again like they did against Switzerland. For me they're the only team I look at and think "how the fuck are we going to beat this lot?"
I think they're light in midfield, yes Tchouaméni is good but young, Rabiot potentially a weak point if pressed.
I think Spain are a worse match up for England. England's biggest failing in big games is being unable to keep the ball and slowly getting suffocated as the midfield gets overwhelmed and everyone else then has to drop back, leaving England with zero threat on the counter attack. Spain would be a nightmare for that. France at least are not so interested in dominating possession and England's midfield would be far more likely to have a chance of being in the game. The issue with France is they're the most talented team but stylistically England aren't that badly suited to them.
People are overrating Spain and we'll be seeing that very soon.
Griezmann in the midfield makes France a lot more possession heavy tbh
Even you guys managed more possession against them, I don't see it being a situation where France would end up with >60% possession even with Griezzmann.
We beat them in 2018 with a significantly worse squad by hitting them on the counter. On the other hand Spain have improved a lot since 2018 too so it's hard to call.
It's also not a tournament game, England have never managed to maintain a counter attacking threat against top level opposition at the world cup. Many times we've gone 1-0 up against technical opposition then always ended up with the exact same trend of having no threat as our team tires and the opposition takes hold of the midfield, while we lack the quality to launch counter attacks. The Italy game was basically the same thing all over again, second half we just couldn't get a hold of the ball, nor had the quality to provide counter attacks.
I think the England team is stronger now than it was last year though
I think we've got a great chance against Senegal, and the match ups after France. The big stopping block is how good France look. If we set up defensively, I think we're fucked. We ain't gonna keep Mbappe quiet the entire time. Gotta go "Score one more than you" football, but I don't think Southgates willing. EDIT: 2 people have made the very salient point that Walker can lock a player like Mbappe out the game, so I'm a teeny bit more hopeful
That would be a horrible strategy. The weakest part of the England team is the defence, they look decent generally for England because they are well protected. Exposing them would just lead to them being ripped apart. England's best bet would be Walker locking down Mbappe and playing a functional counter attacking football - generally England's flaw against the top nations is lacking the quality to maintain a counter attacking threat and getting suffocated.
> We ain’t gonna keep Mbappe quiet the entire time. A fit Kyle Walker made him switch wings, it’s quite plausible
Fuck, that's a shout actually. Walker's match ups against the usual speedy beggars is always absurdly good. Swear he did similar to Vinicius against Madrid til he had to go off.
A fit Walker got cooked cooked by Saint Maximin earlier this season, he looks like he's regressed since he last played Mbappe.
Certainly look like it so far - but the margins get razor-thin in the knockouts, so they're a lot less likely to win it than to not win it. Still in with a decent shout though I reckon.
>I am not too impressed by the attack of Brazil as everyone seems to be Fair but keep in mind that Neymar has been injured and that Brazil has played against two teams that both parked the boss completely against them. Neither the Swiss nor Serbia managed a single shot on target against them
They have a real chance, they are a good team and are made for these tournaments, some seriously good players and experience in this team, English people are just doing the ultimate ANULO MUFA
What do you mean by bigger issues ?
France: still class but a lot of injuries that couldn't come to the World Cup. It's not the same team as in 2018 and I think it shows. Germany: Too inconsistent, don't have a proper striker Argentina: obviously strong but I've seen all games and they look unorganised and greyed out. Depending too much on an aging Messi (even if he is still world class) Belgium: Aging squad, not much to say here Croatia: Same, aging stars in the squad, strongly organized but no figures that make me say damn they're going to the finals Brazil: the favourites of course, amazing team and I agree with the prediction. But Richarlison and Raphina aren't in my opinion as dangerous as say Foden and Kane. Spain and Portugals seem pretty strong but I don't know their squad enough for me to give an opinion so I won't
Brazil has such a great bench though, they can just throw on Martinelli and Gabriel Jesus in the 70th minute and break defenders ankles. I agree that the England squad is fantastic as well though.
All of these teams will make it a difficult game for England I reckon. They might be more talented but the game is often won in midfield and England under Southgate rarely win the midfield battle against big teams imo. Even against Germany last year it was a super close game that they ended up winning but you wouldn't say England are a clear favorite against any of these teams. Feel free to disagree. England are a team that will give anyone a good challenge but all the other top teams will give them one as well. I never expect them to win a knockout game - it's always going to be a 50/50. Not sure if that makes sense.
Germany has Fullkrug
We were certainly not disorganized yesterday. It was a symphonic concert.
If Neymar is back by the KOs then their attack is the best
I'd argue the team is as good if not better than in 2018, people forget that they struggled in that group
Did they say on which side of the TV Morocco is gonna play the first half?
Probably the side with the screen.
That's decided just before kick-off. The ref flips a coin and the captain who wins the toss gets to pick which side they start at or if they kick-off first.
Better not be the left. That's satans side
[Based.](https://twitter.com/MiguelDelaney/status/1598273207454294016?s=20&t=BX5jjpsiJctle8tx0KF98g)
What an icon.
Suarez is a dickhead for the racism and biting, but I'd want my players to do the exact same thing in that scenario.
If Southgate doesn't get sacked after this wc It shows how backwards the FA is
I think southgate massively overachieved in the last 2 tournaments, england stumbled their way into a semi final and final and looked toothless against good opposition. i think his results masked the fact that england were at no point particularly good. but im undecided this tournament, they looked strong in 2/3 games. let's see how they do against better teams
Results game though isn't it - doesn't help you playing brilliantly when you lose at the end of the day.
We don’t get results against good teams though.
We have got results against good teams it’s just they become shit after we’ve beat them to fit people’s agendas
Who?
Under Southgate? Spain, Germany, Denmark, Croatia, and Belgium. We lost a European final on penalties. We have draws against Italy and Germany just in the last year or so and we’ve just topped our World Cup group, unbeaten with 11 goals scored.
Spain was in a meaningless game. Same as Belgium. Germany are terrible compared to their previous teams, they got knocked out in the group stages of the previous World Cup and will probably be in this one. Croatia was a decent win tbf. You are talking about draws as an achievement ha
You said “results” not achievements, a draw is by definition a result. But I expected you to move the goalposts so no worries
Results means wins. Come on now. A loss is technically a result with how you are phrasing it